Allahabad High Court
Bablu @ Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7062 of 2023
Applicant :- Bablu @ Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pallavi Rani
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Kumar
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Ms. Pallavi Rani, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prashant Kumar and Sri Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State. Perused the record.
On earlier occasion, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed short counter affidavit, which has already taken on record.
Learned AGA has filed affidavit today which is taken on record.
The prayer sought by means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 30.09.2021 in S.T. No. 1253 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 300 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 354A, 354B, 452 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Cholapur, District Varanasi in the light of the compromise dated 24.08.2022.
Contention raised by the counsel for the applicant that in the pending proceeding better sense has been prevailed between the contesting parties and they have come to terms. The compromise deed dated 24.08.2022 is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit accompanying the affidavit, which is signed by contesting parties and the concerned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi on 08.09.2022 after summoning both the parties have verified the covenants of the compromise. In the recent judgement of Jhabbu Dubey Alias Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others. The Court has inquire as to what amount has been received by the applicant pursuant to the Rule 8 and 12(4) and 12(4)(a) of the SC/ST Rules.
In reply to it, learned AGA has submitted that no amount has been advanced in favour of the opposite party no.2.
Taking into account that the parties has come to terms and in order to have a larger good, peace and tranquility in the society, when the parties themselves have cleared off all the distances and disputes.
Therefore, under these changed circumstances, the entire proceeding pending against the applicants may be quashed in the light of compromise jotted down between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1
4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705
5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497
8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653
10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
14. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)
15. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
16. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
17. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
18. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736
19. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-
i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
ii.The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and difference, the Court deems it proper and to meet the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands ALLOWED. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned charge sheet as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case pending against the applicants, are hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.
Order Date :- 20.3.2023/Abhishek Sri.
